]]>On 11 September 2017, the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) published draft regulations prohibiting the manufacture and supply of rinse-off personal care products containing microbeads. The draft Regulations (available here) are to be laid before the UK Parliament for approval.

Under the draft legislation:

companies will be prohibited from manufacturing such products from 1 January 2018, and from supplying such products from 30 June 2018; and

failure to comply will be an offence punishable by a fine of up to 10% of annual turnover in England.

Background

The new legislation forms part of the UK’s marine strategy to achieve and maintain clean, healthy and ecologically diverse marine waters by 2020 as part of a wider EU strategy. It is estimated that up to 680 tonnes of plastic microbeads are used in cosmetic products such as face scrubs and toothpastes sold in the UK each year. These microbeads do not biodegrade and can often end up in marine waters, being too small to be completely filtered out in sewage treatment systems. Evidence has shown that such particles absorb toxic chemicals and pathogens and are ingested by marine organisms, damaging their health and thereby entering the food chain. Voluntary measures have already been taken by industry, but the UK Government wishes by introducing these Regulations to ensure consistent compliance across industry.

Several other countries have already implemented, or are seeking to implement, equivalent measures, including in the US, Italy, France, Ireland, South Korea, India and Australia.

New Offences

Under the new Regulations, it will be an offence to manufacture and supply (by way of sale, promotional prize or gift) rinse-off personal care products containing microbeads of 5mm or less in any dimension. “Microbeads” are defined as water-insoluble plastic particles, consisting of a synthetic polymeric substance or a combination of such substances.

Cosmetic products covered by the ban will include products applied to any external part of the human body (including skin, hair, lips and nails), teeth or oral cavity, for the purpose of cleaning, protecting or perfuming, maintaining or restoring the body’s condition or changing its appearance. It will apply to products that are intended to be promptly removed by washing or rinsing with water, rather than left to be absorbed or otherwise worn off.

Sanctions and local authority powers

The Regulations will be enforced by local authorities who will have the power to require the person committing an offence to pay a fine of up to 10% of that person’s annual turnover in England.

Under the Regulations, local enforcement offices will have the power to enter business premises and carry out any necessary investigations to ascertain whether there has been an offence if they have reasonable belief that an offence has been committed. Local authorities will also have the power to issue variable monetary penalties, compliance notices and stop notices, and to accept “enforcement undertakings” signed by the offending company setting out the action it will take to prevent prohibited activities, compensate those affected by the offence, and steps to restore any likely damage to the environment.

The Regulations also provide for the publication of enforcement action taken by local authorities.

The Regulations require local authorities to consult on and publish guidance on the sanctions and penalties available under the Regulations, including the circumstances in which may or may not be imposed, factors to be taken into account in calculating penalties, and the rights to make representations and appeal decisions handed down by the local authorities.

Next steps

The draft Regulations are to be laid before both Houses of Parliament in the UK for approval.

If passed, companies will need to ensure that they stop manufacturing rinse-off personal care products containing microbeads by 1 January 2018 and companies (from manufacturers to distributors and retailers) will no longer be able to supply remaining stock from 30 June 2018. This will need to be factored in to supply chain planning and onward supply agreements.

]]>Awaiting a monumental decision by the Presidenthttps://www.hlregulation.com/2017/08/28/awaiting-a-monumental-decision-by-the-president/
Mon, 28 Aug 2017 21:22:18 +0000http://www.hlregulation.com/?p=9957As expected, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke on Thursday delivered his draft report to the President regarding the fate of certain national monuments, as directed by Executive Order No. 13792. Specifically, the President required that Secretary Zinke undertake an unprecedented review of all national monuments of more than 100,000 acres, which had been established under authority of the Antiquities Act since 1976.

]]>As expected, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke on Thursday delivered his draft report to the President regarding the fate of certain national monuments, as directed by Executive Order No. 13792. Specifically, the President required that Secretary Zinke undertake an unprecedented review of all national monuments of more than 100,000 acres, which had been established under authority of the Antiquities Act since 1976. The Antiquities Act was enacted in 1906, and provides that a President may designate a national monument on federally-owned lands to protect historic landmarks and historic and pre-historic structures and objects of historic or scientific interest. The President was inspired to re-evaluate these actions of his predecessors by politicians in western States, notably including Utah, who had long objected to the establishment of national monuments on federally-owned public lands in their states.

Twenty-seven, and counting…

Twenty-seven monuments meet the President’s criteria, and the Secretary was asked to judge whether any or all of these warranted modification or rescission because they exceed in size the “smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.” Monument lands are typically administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and are “withdrawn” from future extractive uses which might otherwise occur on public lands. Opponents of monument designation argue that economic use of the public lands is more beneficial to nearby communities. During his study, Secretary dropped from further review six monuments of the qualifying 27, and in July made an interim report on the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah, finding preliminarily but without specificity that it did not meet Antiquities Act criteria.

To modify, but not to rescind…

While transmitting his draft report to the White House on Thursday, Secretary announced that he does not recommend the complete rescission of any national monument designation. Otherwise, the Secretary did not disclose the nature or bases of his findings and recommendations to the President. However, published reports indicate that the Secretary has recommended substantial reductions in size of at least three monuments: Bears Ears and Grand Staircase Escalante in Utah, and Cascade-Siskyou in Oregon.

Bears Ears National Monument

Bears Ears is indeed deserving of special attention because of its size (1.36 million acres), the richness and diversity of its archeological resources, and its spiritual significance to Native Americans of the region. The Navajo, Hopi, Ute, Ute Mountain Ute, and Zuni joined in the Bears Ears Coalition to urge permanent protection of this cultural heritage. When President Obama issued his Proclamation to establish the Bears Ears National Monument, he recognized its importance to Native Americans by requiring that they be consulted in writing, and provide substantive input in administering, the management plan for this newly-protected landscape. Not surprisingly, tribal members were among the more than 2.8 million Americans who overwhelmingly recommended to Secretary Zinke that the monuments not be revised or rescinded.

A monumental decision…

Hogan Lovells represents, pro bono public, the clearly-delineated interests of Native Americans, conservationists, archeologists, preservationists, and outdoor recreationists who seek to protect the integrity of the Bears Ears National Monument, and to secure for Presidents the continued use of the American Antiquities Act of 1906. Very soon, President Trump will respond to Secretary Zinke’s recommendations on the disposition of 21 national monuments, including Bears Ears. In so doing, the President will signal whether he values this extraordinary prerogative of Presidential authority to permanently protect “historic landmarks, historic and pre-historic structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest.”

]]>EPA to Reconsider Final Determination on Mid-term Evaluation of GHG Emission Standards for Light-Duty Vehicleshttps://www.hlregulation.com/2017/08/23/epa-to-reconsider-final-determination-on-mid-term-evaluation-of-ghg-emission-standards-for-light-duty-vehicles/
Wed, 23 Aug 2017 12:53:39 +0000http://www.hlregulation.com/?p=9936EPA and NHTSA are currently conducting a Mid-term Evaluation as part of the 2012 GHG emission standards established for MY 2017-2025 passenger cars and trucks. Pursuant to the 2012 rulemaking, EPA committed to conduct a Mid-term Evaluation of the GHG standards for MY 2022-2025 light-duty vehicles. As part of the Mid-term Evaluation, EPA issued for

]]>EPA and NHTSA are currently conducting a Mid-term Evaluation as part of the 2012 GHG emission standards established for MY 2017-2025 passenger cars and trucks. Pursuant to the 2012 rulemaking, EPA committed to conduct a Mid-term Evaluation of the GHG standards for MY 2022-2025 light-duty vehicles. As part of the Mid-term Evaluation, EPA issued for public comment a joint Draft Technical Assessment Report in July 2016 and a Proposed Determination in November 2016. EPA’s subsequent January 2017 Mid-term Evaluation Final Determination (“Final Determination”) recommended no change to the GHG standards for light duty vehicles for MY2022-2025. In March 2017, EPA announced its intention to reconsider this Final Determination and to coordinate its reconsideration with NHTSA’s review. EPA’s Mid-term Evaluation and new Final Determination must be completed by April 1, 2018.

At the same time, NHTSA also has issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for MY 2022–2025 Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards and Request for Scoping Comments on its Mid-term Evaluation, 82 Fed. Reg. 34,740 (July 26, 2017). In an upcoming proposed rulemaking, NHTSA intends to propose separate attribute based standards for passenger cars and light trucks for MYs 2022–2025, and also may evaluate the MY 2021 standards it finalized in 2012 to ensure they remain ‘‘maximum feasible.’’ As with any CAFE rulemaking, NHTSA will also consider other programmatic aspects in addition to stringency (such as flexibilities and vehicle classification) that may affect model years prior to MY 2022-2025. As part of its scoping process NHTSA seeks public comment on the range of alternatives under consideration, on the impacts to be considered, and on the most important matters for in-depth analysis in the EIS. Scoping comments are due to NHTSA by August 25, 2017.

These recent notices indicate EPA and NHTSA’s intent to issue a new Final Determination regarding the appropriateness of the MY 2022–2025 GHG standards no later than April 1, 2018, in consultation and coordination as part of a national harmonized program, and well before April 1, 2020, when NHTSA is statutorily required to issue a final rule for MY 2022 CAFE standards.

]]>The Western Governors’ Association species initiative: A proposal for meaningful bi-partisan reformhttps://www.hlregulation.com/2017/07/25/the-western-governors-association-species-initiative-a-proposal-for-meaningful-bi-partisan-reform/
Tue, 25 Jul 2017 22:11:05 +0000http://www.hlregulation.com/?p=9886At its summer meeting in Whitefish, Montana in June, the Western Governors Association took an important step toward bi-partisan reform – or “modernization” – of the Endangered Species Act.

]]>NRC Seeking to Improve Relationships with American Indian Tribeshttps://www.hlregulation.com/2016/12/23/nrc-seeking-to-improve-relationships-with-american-indian-tribes/
Fri, 23 Dec 2016 20:16:12 +0000http://www.hlregulation.com/?p=9114The relationship between the federal government and American Indian Tribes has taken on new relevance following protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline project. In this light, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has been prescient in moving forward in a number of areas to clarify and improve its relationship with American Indian communities.

]]>The relationship between the federal government and American Indian Tribes has taken on new relevance following protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline project. In this light, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has been prescient in moving forward in a number of areas to clarify and improve its relationship with American Indian communities.

In particular, this month the agency approved a final “Tribal Policy Statement” outlining the principles to guide the agency’s relationship with American Indian Tribes. The NRC also has developed a “Tribal Protocol Manual” with more specific steps to guide NRC staff interactions with American Indian Tribes. According to the NRC Commission, the principles at the core of the Tribal Policy Statement are:

The NRC Recognizes the Federal Trust Relationship With and Will Uphold its Trust Responsibility to Indian Tribes.

The NRC Recognizes and Is Committed to a Government-to-Government Relationship with Indian Tribes.

The NRC Will Conduct Outreach to Indian Tribes.

The NRC Will Engage in Timely Consultation.

The NRC Will Coordinate with Other Federal Agencies.

The NRC Will Encourage Participation by State-Recognized Tribes.

Interactions with American Indian Tribes have been at the forefront for the NRC in recent years, particularly in the context of uranium in situ leach recovery (ISR) operations. Uranium ISR facilities, although most often supported by the local communities, are also located near areas historically settled by American Indian Tribes, and many Tribes have been opposed to these projects. The NRC licensing process allows American Indian communities a chance to participate in licensing proceedings and argue their concerns before Atomic Safety & Licensing Boards (Licensing Boards), a feature unique in many ways to the NRC. American Indian communities have taken advantage of this and raised contentions in multiple uranium ISR proceedings.

Two uranium ISR decisions are of particular interest, and signal an effort by the NRC Commission to do more with regards to meeting the agency’s National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requirements in regards to American Indian Tribes. The first Licensing Board decision, issued April 2015, concerned the licensing of the new South Dakota Dewey-Budock “Powertech” ISR facility. In this decision, the Licensing Board found the NRC staff’s consultation efforts with the Oglala Sioux Tribe, and its cultural resource review of site, both inadequate under the NHPA and NEPA. Of particular interest, the Powertech Licensing Board explained that the need for a meaningful cultural resource review under the NHPA is a similar but different requirement than the need to understand environmental impacts to cultural resources under NEPA. According to the Powertech Licensing Board, the NRC staff, albeit satisfying the NHPA in this regard, failed to meet NEPA’s requirements. The Commission today, on December 23, 2016, issued a critical order affirming key aspects of the Powertech decision.

The Commission’s affirmation of the Powertech decision likely bodes well for a separate Licensing Board decision, currently under review by the Commission, regarding the license renewal of the Crow Butte ISR facility in Nebraska. In this May 2016 decision, which involved the same intervenor, the Oglala Sioux Tribe, the Crow Butte Licensing Board found that the NRC staff’s consultation efforts satisfied the NHPA, but that the cultural resource review of the site failed to meet the needs of either the NHPA or NEPA. The Crow Butte Licensing Board here emphasized a need for those with expertise in Oglala Sioux cultural artifacts to play a role in the cultural resource review of the site.

For more information about the NRC’s Tribal Policy Statement or Tribal Protocol Manual, or recent litigation before the NRC involving American Indian Tribes, please feel free to contact the authors.

]]>Renewable Fuels Association Calls On EPA and CFTC to Investigate RIN Marketshttps://www.hlregulation.com/2016/08/04/renewable-fuels-association-calls-on-epa-and-cftc-to-investigate-rin-markets/
Thu, 04 Aug 2016 20:16:14 +0000http://www.hlregulation.com/?p=8808In an August 1, 2016 letter to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) called for an investigation into Renewable Identification Number (RIN) trading and recent increases in RIN prices. RINs are the currency used for compliance with EPA’s Renewable Volume Obligations under the Renewable

]]>In an August 1, 2016 letter to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) called for an investigation into Renewable Identification Number (RIN) trading and recent increases in RIN prices. RINs are the currency used for compliance with EPA’s Renewable Volume Obligations under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. In the August 1 letter, RFA calls upon the CFTC and EPA to take action under the recently-executed memorandum of understanding (MOU), in which EPA and CFTC agreed to coordinate and share information regarding the RIN and renewable fuels markets. Under the MOU, CFTC also agreed to “advise EPA” and “conduct appropriate oversight” to deter fraud and market abuse.

Advocating on behalf of the ethanol industry, RFA asserts that recent spikes in RIN pricing do not correlate with increased ethanol production levels. Instead of being driven by basic supply and demand market fundamentals, RFA alleges that RIN prices are being manipulated by those seeking reform or repeal of the RFS program. Accordingly, RFA’s letter urges the agencies to investigate RIN price volatility.

Some, however, attribute the continued price increases to inadequate supply of RINs. For example, a recent study published by the University of Illinois predicts an upcoming shortfall in the supply of RINs. The study, by Scott Irwin and Darrel Good of the University of Illinois’ Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, included an analysis of supply and demand across all RIN categories. The study finds that EPA’s recent policy of setting RFS mandates sufficiently high to increase biofuel consumption, combined with the increased consumption of gasoline driven by falling oil prices, motivates the increased use of RINs to meet RFS compliance obligations. Irwin and Good have made this point in prior studies as well, linking EPA’s demonstrated seriousness of getting the RFS program “back on track” to RIN price spikes in 2013 and 2015.

]]>Western Governors’ Association Urges Expanded Role for States in Administration of the Endangered Species Acthttps://www.hlregulation.com/2016/07/11/western-governors-association-urges-expanded-role-for-states-in-administration-of-the-endangered-species-act/
Tue, 12 Jul 2016 00:39:22 +0000http://www.hlregulation.com/?p=8761At the conclusion of its annual meeting earlier this month, the Western Governors’ Association adopted a broad policy resolution (2016-08) with specific recommendations for reform of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.). Not surprisingly, these recommendations envision a greater role for states in the management of threatened species and their habitat,

]]>At the conclusion of its annual meeting earlier this month, the Western Governors’ Association adopted a broad policy resolution (2016-08) with specific recommendations for reform of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.). Not surprisingly, these recommendations envision a greater role for states in the management of threatened species and their habitat, and in implementation of the Act.

Governor Mead’s Initiative

Adoption of the resolution came at the end a year-long “Species Conservation and Endangered Species Act Initiative,” featuring four workshops and five webinars for stakeholders across the West. The Initiative was chaired by Governor Matt Mead of Wyoming, who had adopted ESA reform as the pivotal theme of his term as Chairman of WGA. Speaking for a bi-partisan consensus of the western Governors, Mead observed that “(t)he current implementation of the ESA often deters meaningful conservation efforts and divides, rather than unites people.”

Full Partnership for the States

Relying on section 6(a) of the Act, which requires cooperation between the Secretary and the states in carrying out the ESA “to the maximum extent practicable,” WGA seeks a “full partnership” in administering and implementing the ESA. The states’ expertise in resource management would be especially relevant in listing decisions and the designation of critical habitat. Perhaps the most far-reaching of the Governors’ recommendations is their proposal of a “regulatory presumption,” in which robust state or multi-state conservation plans would be recognized as justification to forgo the listing of a candidate species. In this way, the Governors seek to codify the finding in PBPA v.Department of the Interior, where listing of the Lesser Prairie Chicken was vacated because the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had failed to follow its own Policy for the Evaluation of Conservation Efforts (PECE). In making a listing decision, FWS is required by PECE to determine whether a pre-existing conservation plan is likely to be effective if implemented, and whether it is likely to be implemented.

Goals for Reform

In addition, the Governors state seven “broad goals” to be considered by the Congress in re-authorizing and amending the Endangered Species Act: renewed emphasis on recovery of species and de-listing; reliance on “sound science” in making listing decisions; increased incentives and funding for conservation, including “block grant” of section 6 funds; and a definition of “foreseeable future” which signals whether climate change is to be a factor in listing decisions.

Next Steps

In announcing adoption of the policy resolution, Governor Mead made clear that ESA reform would remain a priority for him and WGA. WGA staff are directed to prepare within three months the first annual action/work plan which lists specific actions, targets and timelines for “furthering the policy resolutions and goals (of the) resolution”. These are likely to include adoption of a comparable resolution by the National Governors Association, where Governor Mead chairs the Natural Resources Committee, communication with the transition team of the incoming Presidential administration, and advocacy on Capitol Hill. The Congress has for many years been loathe to tackle controversial ESA issues. However, it may now welcome an opportunity for dialog on issues raised by Governors of both parties who seek a larger role for their states in the implementation of ESA.

]]>CFTC Agrees to Help EPA Police RIN Markethttps://www.hlregulation.com/2016/03/23/cftc-agrees-to-help-epa-police-rin-market/
Wed, 23 Mar 2016 14:35:48 +0000http://www.hlregulation.com/?p=8477On March 15, 2016, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on the “Sharing of Information Available to EPA Related to the Functioning of Renewable Fuel and Related Markets.” The MOU purports to respond to widespread concerns about fraud in the Renewable

The MOU purports to respond to widespread concerns about fraud in the Renewable Identification Number (RIN) market. RINs are the currency used for compliance with EPA’s Renewable Volume Obligations under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. Under the RFS, U.S. refiners and importers of gasoline or diesel fuel, known as “obligated parties,” are required to either use certain volumes of renewable fuel as transportation fuel each year, or obtain RINs to meet a Renewable Volume Obligation (RVO) specified by EPA annually for each obligated party. RINs are generated based on the volume of qualifying renewable fuel made available for transportation fuels in the United States. Obligated parties may generate or purchase RINs and then retire such RINs in order to demonstrate compliance with their RVO.

RINs can be traded separately from the renewable fuels from which they are derived. This has created the opportunity for RINs to be fraudulently created and traded by parties that have not actually produced or imported renewable fuels. The MOU memorializes the CFTC’s commitment to help EPA prevent fraud in the RIN market. As explained by the MOU, the agencies “intend to coordinate, cooperate and share information, including PBI [“Proprietary Business Information”], in the possession of the EPA with regard to the RIN and renewable fuels markets in connection with the respective regulatory and enforcement responsibilities . . . .”

The CFTC commits to using the information provided by EPA to “advise EPA on techniques that could be employed to minimize fraud, market abuses or other violations, and to conduct appropriate oversight in RIN and renewable fuel markets to aid EPA in successfully fulfilling the EPA’s statutory functions under Clean Air Act §211(o)(2)(A)(i)” (emphasis added). Although “conducting appropriate oversight” does not suggest that the CFTC will immediately assert jurisdiction over the RIN market, the MOU does not foreclose this possibility.

Indeed, the CFTC may seek to take a more active role in policing the RIN market, having been pressured to do so back in 2013 by Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., chairwoman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, who in September 2013, sent a letter to the CFTC chairman soliciting the CFTC’s help in determining the causes of extraordinary volatility in the price of RINs. Sen. Stabenow asked the CFTC to inform her whether there are limits to the agency’s authority that could inhibit it from monitoring the RIN market. Sen. Stabenow’s request echoed concerns voiced in March 2013 by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., when he asked EPA to provide the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee with data on volatility and irregular trading in the RIN market.

The issue now appears to have gained some traction with the CFTC. According to the MOU, the CFTC will use the information provided by EPA to increase its “understanding of the operation of and participants in those markets.” Thus, while the CFTC has recently limited its oversight of some corners of the commodity markets, it may begin to increase its scrutiny of others. Regulation of trading markets can negatively impact liquidity, as the CFTC’s Dodd-Frank driven approach to the energy swaps market has shown.

]]>Emerging EPA CWA Regulations to Address Potential Hazardous Substances Releaseshttps://www.hlregulation.com/2016/02/19/emerging-epa-cwa-regulations-to-address-potential-hazardous-substances-releases/
Fri, 19 Feb 2016 20:39:32 +0000http://www.hlregulation.com/?p=8384On February 16, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved a Consent Decree between environmental plaintiff groups and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that likely will result in comprehensive new requirements affecting companies that handle, store, transport or process hazardous substances. Envtl. Justice Health All. for Chem. Reform. v.

]]>On February 16, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved a Consent Decree between environmental plaintiff groups and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that likely will result in comprehensive new requirements affecting companies that handle, store, transport or process hazardous substances. Envtl. Justice Health All. for Chem. Reform. v. U.S. EPA, No. 15-cv-05705, ECF No. 46 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2016). The Decree requires EPA to develop regulations under Section 311(j)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) “establishing procedures, methods, and equipment and other requirements for equipment to prevent discharges of . . . hazardous substances . . . from onshore facilities . . ., and to contain such discharges . . . .” 33 U.S.C. § 1321(j)(1)(C). This provision has long been a part of the CWA regulatory regime. EPA implemented the provision with respect to oil, resulting in the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) and Facility Response Plan (FRP) rules, but it never did so for hazardous substances.

The Decree requires that EPA must issue a notice of proposed rulemaking within 18 months and take a final action no later than 14 months thereafter. If EPA decides (within the next 60 days) that it must undertake an information collection exercise pursuant to 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(2)(A), both deadlines will be extended by 10 months.

Those familiar with EPA’s SPCC and FRP requirements under 40 C.F.R. Part 112 will appreciate the potential complexity of this new regulatory undertaking and the compliance challenges it will create for facility owners and operators. While the current regulations apply only to oil, the new provisions would apply to hundreds of different substances whose physical and chemical properties are as varied as the facilities and equipment industry has employed to manage them. See 40 C.F.R. § 116.4. And the regulated community is likely to expand as EPA’s new requirements affect facilities – especially small businesses – that may store chemicals but do not store oil.

SPCC Plans cover many aspects of facility design, construction and operation, and we would expect EPA to consider a similar approach to developing the new regulations for hazardous substances. These aspects include, for example: discharge prevention measures (including material handling procedures), drainage controls such as secondary containment, countermeasures for discovering and responding to releases, disposal methods for material that is cleaned up, a systematic plan for inspections, tests and record keeping, personnel training programs, and security measures. See 40 C.F.R. § 112.7.

Those likely to be subject to this new initiative should begin now to prepare for their participation in the regulatory process. EPA should be strongly encouraged to avoid duplication or supplementation of requirements already imposed under other regulatory programs, and to understand the efficacy of existing best industry practices. EPA should be educated as to the different types of measures that should be recognized because of differences among chemicals and groups of chemicals. The added cost of the new regulation, and its impacts on small businesses, should be documented and communicated effectively to the Agency as options are identified for consideration. And if EPA undertakes an information collection activity, it will be imperative for industry trade associations to become involved sufficiently to reduce the burden of information collection on their members by tailoring requests and advocating for efficiencies in the process.

The contract specifies that KBR will perform FEED engineering for a two train LNG facility and will provide FERC’s require technical documentation for the pre-filing process. G2’s proposed design will include state-of-the-art aeroderivative gas turbines and additional technological enhancements to maximize each train’s design capacity.

G2 plans to export up to 14 mtpa from its LNG export facility in Cameron Parish, La. The U.S. Department of Energy granted G2 a license to export LNG to Free Trade Agreement (FTA) countries in July 2015, and a license to export LNG to non-FTA is pending before the Department. Hogan Lovells is advising G2 on its export facility.